SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABI�Y ORDER NO. • 7_ MUSCO OLIVE PRODUCTS AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 30. Considering the violations and information cited above, the total maximum civil liability that can be imposed by the Regional Board for all violations is $2,161,000 and the minimum civil liability is $52,500. 31. The Board, after hearing all testimony, determined the Discharger is civilly liable. In determining the amount of civil liability, the following factors have been taken into consideration: "The nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations,whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement, the degree of toxicity of the discharge,and,with respect to the violator, the ability to pay, the effect on ability to continue in business,any voluntary cleanup efforts undertaken,any prior history of violations, the degree of culpability, economic savings, if any, resulting from the violation, and other matters as justice may require." [Water Code Section 13327] 32. The Board determined, with respect to the factors in Finding No. 31, the following: The nature of the violation is that technical reports required by the Board pursuant to Section 13267 of the CWC and Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 5-00-717 were not submitted. The circumstances are such that the Discharger was aware of the necessity to provide the required documents, but failed to do so. In addition, the Discharger operated its wastewater system in routine violation of WDRs Order No. 97-037 and C&A Order No. 5-00-717. The violations include, but are not limited to: discharge of waste to surface waters, discharge of waste within 100 feet of surface waters, discharge of waste during rain events, failure to confine the discharge to property owned by the Discharger, failure to comply with BOD and DIS loading rates and effluent limits. The extent of the violation is that the Discharger routinely violated both its WDRs and the C&A Order issued for failure to voluntarily comply with the WDRs. The Discharger had an opportunity to comment on the proposed reports and proposed timelines contained in the C&A Order before it was signed by the Executive Officer. Although the Discharger submitted the reports required by the C&A Order, it did not complete the facility modifications necessary to comply with its WDRs. As a result of the non-compliance, the Board issued a California Water Code Section 13308 Time Schedule Order on 25 January 2002. The gravity of the violation is that the Discharger's failure to submit a complete Report of Waste Discharge prevented staff from developing updated WDRs. The Discharger was aware of the need to obtain revised WDRs before its dischdogWxceeded the flow limits and effluent/loading limits contained in WDRs Order No. 97-037, but continued to increase its discharge until it was well in excess of the permitted capacity. Second, the Discharger's failure to submit the required reports has prevented staff from assessing whether groundwater degradation has occurred or is likely to occur. Third, the Discharger's failure to comply with the WDRs and continued expansion without sufficient treatment and disposal capacity has resulted in discharges of waste to surface water and continuing nuisance odor conditions. Fourth, by refusing to complete the required reports and construct improvements in a timely fashion, the Discharger has received an unfair economic advantage over other food processors in the Central Valley Region.